Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Ecuador's foreign minister had offered assylum in 2010 but president Rafael Correa later dismised it. It's possible they have succombed to US pressure already, or they could be worried he has something they don't want released.

Should be an interesting turn of events either way. I do hope he finds refuge somewhere, to continue the good fight.

Ecuador's foreign minister had offered assylum in 2010 but president Rafael Correa later dismised it. It's possible they have succombed to US pressure already

Well, in that case couldn't the Ecuadorians choose to hand him over to the US.

Nevertheless, I don't see why he's avoiding extradition to Sweden, it's certainly not the worst country in the world. And the US have yet to raise any charges... Which I think would be unlikely to stick in any event.

I'm in New Zealand where the US FBI is getting the NZ Government to charge the owner of MegaUpload 'Kim DotcCom' on their behalf. There is nothing wrong with this, it is part of NZs responsibilities. However, the FBI have been duplicating the MegaUpload harddrives while in New Zealand despite not being permitted to.

In short, the FBI broke New Zealand law. Maybe the US would respect Ecuadorean law if Assange were there, maybe they wouldn't. The USA does more good things than people give them credit for, and I personally am pretty pro-US, but the evidence is the US flouts international laws and norms when it suits them.

If I were Assange then seeking asylum is possibly not a bad thing (issuing an Interpol warrant for the charges he faced is pretty extreme - it shows the lengths that the Powers That Be will go to in order to silence this whistle-blower [he didn't report anything false, just made duplicity publicly known]).

I would agree with you - if you take the case against Assange in isolation, that is. But when you widen the scope of your consideration to the events surrounding Assagne at the time, and factor in the part where the judges dismissed the case and then mysteriously reopened it then you should get a better idea of why something more nefarious is going on.

I guess I am. Prove to me that something more nefarious is going on with this Sweden Condom Non-wearing case?

How about the Interpol arrest warrant?

Interpol aren't policemen. Interpol's job is to coordinate police forces of different countries when they're working on catching people who operate in those countries. They provide interpreters, make sure everybody has copies of all the evidence, etc. There's no way they can be involved in something that only happened in one country and in fact their constitution forbids it..

Their constitution also forbids them getting involved in any crime which doesn't carry a minimum

Are you really naive enough to believe that's what ANY of this is about?

I mean, seriously?

Well, now it's about flushing $320000 of bail down the judicial drain. Not to mention the additional criminal charge (Bail Act offense, or whatever is applicable in the United Kingdom in this instance -- not my area of law).

Sweden is very liberal about the protection of women and what should constitute sexual abuse. He was a big name, and he broke the law to the point he used his influence to do things that would get other men arrested too. And then instead of answering the charges, he fled the country. Over something that might get him $1000 in fines and told not to come back to the country.

In most countries, what he did would be considered douchebaggery of the highest proportions. In Sweden, they find it criminal...even if it is pretty much a slap on the wrist. When a big name does it, they need to make an example...and the example is he pays a fine much smaller than he has wasted in lawyers so far and goes home. He could have taken care of this months ago, but he wanted to stay in the public eye and pretend that he was oppressed. I wish I could fuck one woman, convince her to drop me off at another woman's home. Fuck her without a condom after telling her I was wearing one, and then go back to the first and pull my condom off halfway through and brag about it...while having half the world look at me as if I'm a political prisoner for doing so...and probably fuck another dozen women in the process.

Gotta hand it to him...he knows how to play others. Are you so naive to think that a man so skilled at manipulation isn't manipulating you?

(BTW I think the US would LOVE to have him in custody, but we all know that he committed no crimes in the US. Treason is not a crime if you aren't a citizen...regardless of what Republicans would like to have you believe)

If it is all that, ask for that fine, and prohibit him from going back into the country. Why do Sweden need to force him back into the country to face the penalty of being prohibited to get back in the country?

Hello someone that doesn't understand that the system of justice in one country isn't the same in another country.

In Sweden, it has been established over and over in these debates, one cannot be charged with a crime unless they have been questioned in person.

He left the country before he could be questioned in person. Yes, one prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence at the time...and another said there was enough to question him. Even in the US, this happens all the time. And it is rarely politically motivated...

I wouldn't be surprised if the US had a part in this...however, I think that Assange had a MUCH bigger part...and I believe Sweden may just be following their own rules, even if the US likes that they are. if someone pisses me off and I see them jaywalking while a cop had his back to my enemy...I might just walk over to the cop and mention how dangerous it is for that guy to be endangering the cars going by and encourage them to follow the laws already there, if nothing more than to piss the guy off a little.

I don't think it takes any conspiracy to note the US is probably enjoying this as they know it is destroying Wikileaks. However, I don't think there is any nefarious plan to extradite him...especially as we have extradition treaties with the UK as well and could just as easily asked to bring him over with the caveat that we'd have to promise not to kill him...that's the only thing the UK asks...and I don't think the US could do this legally...much easier to kill him right where he was in the first place and even if everyone knew it was the US, we'd still have plausible deniability. That's the problem with you conspiracy theorists...you don't think of the simplest solutions. Occam's Razor...

He was given permission to leave Sweden. So he did. Then something weird and as yet unexplained happened and another prosecutor decided he was guilty of something without including the two women the original questioning had been about.

I've never heard of this "have to be in Sweden to be questioned by a prosecutor" before. Presumably neither Assange nor his lawyers have as well. The prosecutor was asked several times to come to London during the last 450+ days of house arrest but refused without saying why.

If a prosecutor is enough of a "judicial authority" (not in this country they aren't) to authorise a EAW then the Swedish embassy is Swedish enough to be a venue for questioning.

The prosecutor was asked several times to come to London during the last 450+ days of house arrest but refused without saying why.

Or even better, why didn't they fly a judge from Sweden to the UK to have the trial there, acquit Assange, and send him on his way? Isn't that the way that Justice normally works? When the suspect refuses to return and fights extradition, don't you normally fly the judge to them? Is that what your country does? Why not? Do you claim that they "refused without saying why"? You seem to have a very odd view of how the judicial system works in any country, let alone Sweden.

If a prosecutor is enough of a "judicial authority" (not in this country they aren't) to authorise a EAW then the Swedish embassy is Swedish enough to be a venue for questioning.

Conspiracy theories always include a way for the little guy to fight back, the David vs Goliath story. There aren't any conspiracy theories I know of that say we're all doomed so just huddle in your basements. There's always some sort of way for those in the know to resist: tin foil hats, spreading informational fliers, not using currency, etc. So the theories can get more complex in order to provide an out for the repressed.

Of the two countries, the UK would seem much more likely to hand over someone in

I live and Sweden and everything you type (and belive) about Sweden is wrong; the only thing you are right about is that Assange is a douchbag.

Getting convicted for ANY violent crime in Sweden with out a confession is very uncommon. We have several cases of murder where all the partisipants have gone free since it has been impossible to prove which one of the accused delivered the killing blow, and they have been convicted of desecrating a corpse since it was impossible to prove that the person was alive when they delivered their blow. A few years back we had a guy who was equitted of rape since he was the last one in the gang rape to have sex with the girl. When it was his turn she was so chocked that she was paralysed. The Swedish court ruled that since she had not protested he was off the hook for rape.

It is unheard of that the Swedish court goes after a man because a woman is pissed because he screwed around. Hunting him across the globe? We don't even do that with convicted killers!

Strange that we have an American deserter turning up so close to Assange getting here. I wonder if there will be two people on that plane back to the US of A.

Some points to notice, in case you care amidst your ad hominems and strawmen.

1. He didn't break the law. The women who he supposedly "raped" only got pissed because they found out Assange had sex with both of them. The other even tweeted how cool it was to meet Assange and how she couldn't "wait to meet the cool people [incl. Assange] again this evening" (this was following the "rape"). If you were really raped, would you be tweeting like that? No.

2. Assange did not flee. He was not told to stay. There was ample time to collect Assange, but nothing was done, so Assange left after several days. Once Assange went out of the country the Swedish prosecutor went apeshit. Assange become an Interpol wanted persona. Of course, this was according to plan.

The saddest part of Wikileaks is that even after they show irrefutable proof of war crimes and other nasty dealings, what is the reaction - people just chant their national anthem louder. That is sad and disgusting.

It's almost as disgusting as people fervently defending that massive system which conducts those kind of abuses on a daily basis.

From what I understand, the term 'rape' is very broad in this country. To the point, people that have been actually raped elsewhere would feel violated.

The idea that one can be 'raped' after the fact of consensual sex doesn't make sense to me, but it isn't my culture. I'll use logic to show you how they feel about this (or at least how I think they understand this). Rape is any unwanted sexual activity. Would they have wanted to have sex with the man either woman knew that he was lying about being monogamous? It sounds like they both would say no. Would they want to have unprotected sex with someone that wasn't monogamous? Far bigger no. The fact that he had unprotected sex AND lied about who all he was sleeping with caused these women to reassess their willingness to have sex with him. If they had known the truth, they wouldn't have been cool with it.

Have you ever dated someone that you realized was a horrible person and lied about everything AFTER the fact? I have. Do I consider myself raped because of this? No. If I would have known everything about this person, I might not have had sex with her. At the time I was having sex with her, I really liked it and I told all my friends how cool she was. Apparently in some countries, you can change your mind about this and then consider it a form of rape.

Apparently, again from what I understand, this is considered a very low form of rape and is punishable by a fine and nothing more.

I don't know. I do feel that if you are a guest in another country, you follow the laws even if they are stupid -- or that you don't know about them.

That said, I agree with what Wikileaks has done...and I just wish it didn't have Assange as the head. Maybe they couldn't have done what they did without a douchebag like Assange in charge. I don't know. The biggest thing I believe is that I have faith in the Swedish gov't for this, and think that he should go back and answers the 'charges' (in quotes because he hasn't legally been charged yet).

And maybe a little part of me wants to see if the US would get him in custody because I think this would make the Occupy Wallstreet protests seem tame in comparison. I don't think we would...too much political ramifications for it...but if we did, I think it would be nearly unanimous that the youth and anyone that is even slightly liberal would rise up and do something about it. So maybe I'm hoping that this happens just to see actual real political change...not a black liberal that is in practice more conservative than Reagan, vs. a white conservative complaining about how unconstitutional it is to provide health care to everyone in a way that mirrors his own laws and policies in his own state 10 years before that he authored himself.

From what I understand, the term 'rape' is very broad in this country. To the point, people that have been actually raped elsewhere would feel violated.

No, that's bad translation. He's suspected of statutory rape, not rape. Sweden uses the same word for both (lit. "violent taking"), but the law distinguishes between the two.

As well as a case of "sexual misconduct" ("ofredande" - another word that translates to multiple meanings in English, including harassment, assault, discord and molestation. The closest word translation is "disturbance of peace", but that's not the meaning):"[he] who exposes himself to another in a manner that is likely to cause discomfort, or otherwise by words or conduct [ofredar] a person in a manner that is likely to offend that person's sexual integrity."

Here in the US, the closest thing to these charges would be "statutory rape" and "sexual assault", but that's because we have little nuances and leeway left after the "tough on crimes" movement that has done such wonders in keeping us all safe...Sweden, on the other hand, are far more lenient.

That's odd. I'm sure the fifth amendment begins with "No person". Not "No citizen of the US". Further to that, Article III asserts the supremacy of the US Supreme Court in applying the constitution to foreign citizens and amendment six refers to "the accused", not "the accused, if they happen to be born in the US and haven't pissed us off enough to ship them off to Guantanamo or add them to Obama's Kill List".

Just because you don't like the idea of justice doesn't mean it's not legally binding.

It makes him look guilty of the "not wearing a condom" charge. He should just go face the trial, especially since there's no way they can prove he's guilty (it's just her word vs. his).

Are you really naive enough to believe that's what ANY of this is about?

I guess I'm just as naive as cpu6502, because I believe this too. Honestly, my first thought on reading this was "urgh, that does NOT look good...guy looks like he's running for cover". Innocent or guilty, running off to South America has a strong appearance of someone trying to escape the law.

Do I think the U.S. government is completely ambivalent about the chap? Well, duh, of course they're likely to be somewhat annoyed. Do I think this entire shambles is some huge conspiracy? And that Sweden, of all places, is just going to roll over in acquiescence? Come on...

Assange is a creep. Looking at the whole "using force" bit, the "not using a condom when you knew full well the woman didn't want that" bit, the guy is a jerk and a creep. Yes, you might think he's a hero with Wikileaks. That doesn't mean he's not a creep. In some countries what he did would just get him branded a creep; in Sweden, they are a bit more adamant about protecting women's rights and they think he did something criminal.

If he doesn't like it and says the charges are without basis, well, man up and go back and fight the charges, and then bugger off to Ecuador or anywhere else you want to, in a fit of self-righteous pique. But the guy needs to take responsibility for his actions.

Personally I think half the reason he doesn't want to is because he's afraid he won't get yanked out to the United States. That would really damage his whole martyr/conspiracy victim image. Without that he's a seriously underwhelming and unprepossessing figure. He'll get prosecuted, he'll be freed, or he might serve some jail time, and in a few months or a few years he'll come out, not having been assassinated. But by then everyone will have forgotten about him.

What makes you think he'd ever face trial if he ended up in Sweden? Sweden has illegally rendered [egyptindependent.com] political refugees to the US to be tortured in the past. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same to Assange?

To answer your question; because Sweden has changed. At the time when the Egyptians were rendered, the Swedish population was convinced that Sweden was the best freest and marvelousest country the entire world. We simply didn't pay attention to things like this, because quite frankly we couldn't believe it would happen. The case of the Egyptians was a big eye opener for many here, and we were quite pissed off (well, as pissed off as Swedish people get).

The Assange case has, before anything really bad has even happened, attracted an enormous amount of publicity, and thus has the attention of every Swedish resident before it has even started (w/r to comparing it to the Egyptians). Some here may think Assange is an ass, some may think he should be put in prison and rot, and some may think he's innocent and/or a hero, but nobody seems to think that he should be given to the US. The public is keeping a very close eye on this case, and an extradition would be a political shit storm beyond anything we've seen for ages.

I'm honestly not particularly proud of how "my" country has acted in this - I can certainly see that the Swedish prosecution seems quite incompetent - but I really do not think that Assange would be dumped off the US. It would be political suicide for everybody involved in the process.

You're confused, because 'charged' does not mean what you think it means in the Swedish justice system.

In the Swedish System 'charged' is the step where they take you before a court to get judged and sentenced. Before they can do that they obviously need to finish their investigation which includes questioning the subject.

The reason you're confused is because you're trying to find a direct analogue for 'charged' when there isn't any.

The way things work is that the police investigate a crime, and once they find a suspect they will inform him about their suspicions and ask him to come in for questioning.

This questioning can legally only be done physically in person, not by email, not by telephone, not by video-conference. If you do not come voluntarily then they will arrest you and bring you in for questioning instead.

After questioning you will then either be released (minor crime or suspicions withdrawn) or jailed (major crime or just afraid you'll flee the country) at which point the prosecutor will take the case to court. As you can imagine the jailing part of that gets really rather complicated if you try to do it through teleconference.

Sweden is a very bureaucratic country, this means that if procedure states things are to be done in this order, then they will be done in this order and few if any exceptions will ever be made for any reason.

So, my cant the question him at their embasy in london, or question him over the phone ?

If its not a setup, then why is the prosecution prepared to waste time and money trying trying to put him in a cell before they ask questions.

So, is it common practice for your country to fly prosecutors or judges to speak to people who refuse to surrender and fight extradition for crimes like rape? Or does the government simply seek extradition? Your question is nonsense - countries don't do that. Do you think you could phone up the judge and tell him you don't want to come to his court despite a summons? That he can just conduct the business over the phone? Not so much.

"In April 2011, Ecuador expelled the U.S. ambassador after a leaked diplomatic cable was shown accusing president Correa of knowingly ignoring police corruption. In retaliation, the Ecuadorian ambassador Luis Gallegos was expelled from the United States.[1]"

Assange should find a good audience amongst Correa's corrupt and human rights abusing buddies. Assange continues to discard his principles - if he still has any remaining.

Stop beating your meat to your masochistic prison torture fantasies. Wikileaks mismanged itself into death, while Assange had burned bridges with everyone. He'll spend a couple years in a nice comfy swedish reformatory dormitory and everyone will forget about him except his groupies.

How, pray tell did Wikileaks mismanage anything? Seems to me that they got an awful lot of important information to press where it belonged. Like what our elected representatives actually think of the war in Afghanistan, or the fact that there was a certain senator in the Australian parliament passing information to the US embassy. Information we, the people who elect the senate didn't know but should have, by rights. Or that a US defence contractor was buying Afghan boys to be raped by war lords. Kind of critical information if that defence contractor is also buying US congressman.

In general stuff that if it really supprised you, then you are an idiot.

Strawman. Whether or not a person is suprised is not even in question. Like all right thinking people I was repulsed, angered, but not surprised that boys were being raped and the US was complicit in these horrific acts.

yes we all know our respective countries feed us a degree of propaganda. Because there are some voter disapproved things that need to be done to keep alies, or some representatives who can't keep their mouth shut or use the information to mess up a plan.
Nothing leaked from Wikileaks was that big deal if you think a little more big picture.

I see. And what of the murdered and raped people in question? Was it a big deal for them? Should they have focused on the bigger picture? If I bombed your daughters wedding and slaughtered your family and then stole your son and raped him, would you just accept that I did that for the gre

He's not even being charged by the women involved anymore. The women suddenly wanted to charge him AFTER they were approached by a swedish prosecutor. They later attempted to drop the charges, were told they couldn't, eventually succeeded in dropping the charges, only to have the charges somehow re-instituted by a swedish prosecutor with known high up US ties under pressure from the swedish government.

This is all as reported by the SWEDISH Press. Stop fucking astro-turfing to attempt to cover this shit up. This is the most blatant abuse of power by the US over its allies I've ever seen.

He's not even being charged by the women involved anymore. The women suddenly wanted to charge him AFTER they were approached by a swedish prosecutor. They later attempted to drop the charges, were told they couldn't, eventually succeeded in dropping the charges, only to have the charges somehow re-instituted by a swedish prosecutor with known high up US ties under pressure from the swedish government.

This is all as reported by the SWEDISH Press. Stop fucking astro-turfing to attempt to cover this shit up. This is the most blatant abuse of power by the US over its allies I've ever seen.

This may be a newsflash to you, but victims don't charge defendants. They're even usually referred to as "complaining witnesses". Prosecutors charge defendants, and only prosecutors can bring charges or drop them. Even if what you said was true about women, which it isn't, they would lack any power to "charge" him or "drop the charges". Hence, why should we believe your frothing rantings about astro-turfing and abuses of power?

It took me about three months before I was comfortable using the word "rape" for what happened to me. It takes time to get past blaming yourself and trying to convince yourself it was nothing because there exist others who had it worse than you. I met a girl who actually started dating the guy who raped her just so that it wouldn't seem so much like rape. You just don't want to see yourself as a victim. Not only because it feels demeaning to yourself, to have become victimized, but because whether consc

But I wonder if the next time someone in Sweden (but, for the sake of argument, someone who hasn't angered our rulers as Assange has) has sex with a sleeping partner and skips the country, there will again be a European arrest order and a worldwide Interpol hunt?

Would they even need to sneak him out? I am not really sure how asylum works; if Ecuador says, "Yes, Assange has asylum here," would the UK government have to allow them to move Assange to an airplane and fly him out of the country?

Bearing in mind that the UK is not China, and would hopefully behave in a more civilized manner.

Would they even need to sneak him out? I am not really sure how asylum works; if Ecuador says, "Yes, Assange has asylum here," would the UK government have to allow them to move Assange to an airplane and fly him out of the country?

Well, I suppose he could continue to do his work from there, assuming they have a reliable Internet connection etc. Not sure if he really wants to spend the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian embassy though -- it is a step up from house arrest in a mansion, but not exactly "freedom."

Based on my undergraduate degree in Law and Order, and a master's in CSI, I can confidently state that the interior of an embassy car holds the same legal status as the embassy itself. The police can stop the car and speak with the driver, but they have no authority to inspect its interior.

I am pretty sure asylum protections are extended to embassies and diplomats' cars. Even if they knew Assange was in the car, the best they could (legally) do is follow the car and hope that he steps out to pee.

That is assuming that they would even give Ecuador a hard time about moving Assange out of their country, which I am not even sure they would do.

I am not entirely sure what the UK government would do if Ecuador granted asylum in this case. It would certainly be harmful to diplomatic relations if the UK refused to honor the asylum i.e. refused to allow Assange to enter the Ecuadorian embassy or travel to Ecuador. Maybe the UK government is willing to pay that prive to send Assange to Sweden; I am not sure what is worth more, Assange being questioned by Swedish police or diplomatic relations with Ecuador. I suspect the latter; the UK has little to lose from sending Assange to Ecuador, and if the Swedes and Ecuadorians have a diplomatic fallout over it, the UK can at least stay in the clear.

Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?

No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.

The CIA has apparently gotten away from that (especially with public figures). Public discrediting works just as effectively, doesn't leave behind a martyr, and isn't as obvious. So if some asshole is criticizing the value of the U.S. dollar [guardian.co.uk], you don't send up a guy with a gun to his room, you send up a maid shaking her ass. Much cleaner that any bullet to the head, and just as effective.

Maybe in Ecuador soon. Possibly not, Assange is too high profile and not as easy to smear with the "terrorist" paintbrush. Wait until the CIA manages to convince some children to say that he fondled them and then just maybe.

There is somewhat of a difference between someone who thinks that aliens at Area 51 are teaming with the CIA to steal his urine--and someone who thinks that the CIA takes covert action against foreign nationals who threaten the security of U.S. confidential information.

Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?

The charges were dropped, then mysteriously the investigation was reopened. If you had sent copies of the secrets of the world's most powerful government to everyone else, would you not be a little nervous about unusual criminal proceedings?

Don't flatter yourself, this is hardly some super-elaborate global conspiracy. Setting a dude up with sex is one of the oldest intelligence ploys in the book (the Germans even used it on JFK). And getting a country like Sweden to bow like a lapdog to you when you're the U.S. is hardly a challenge.

He's already long since burned all his bridges. They would have ceased caring by this point if it was all nothing but phoney charges. Outside of the loon fringe cheerleaders, no one even still cares about what this guy says.

Whether he's still active or not, getting him and punishing him is still important to the U.S. because it sends a clear message to anyone thinking of doing something like Wikileaks in the future. "Reveal our secrets, and we WILL get you."

Why? He's already been globally discredited and made countless enemies of past associates and allies. The US or Sweden gain nothing by continuing to try to push phoney charges since he already as been punished and the message has been sent. Last time I checked no one else has taken his place so it seems the message has rang clear.

And from my point of view I see a female prosecutor that's made a career out of prosecuting men for "rape" (Swedish definition) who saw a case dropped that fit her typical profile on a high profile target that would not only bring attention but full on front page press stories about the issue. She then reopened the case with the hope of prosecuting said famous person with the hope that all the attention this would bring would raise the issue in the minds of Swedish public and bring not only political but pu

Yeah, it's crazy to think something is wrong with a criminal investigation against a controversial person being closed for lack of evidence, then suddenly reopened. Clearly, anyone who thinks that the secretive intelligence agency of the country whose secrets were published by Assange would have anything to do with this situation is a crazy conspiracy theorist...

The reason I have seen given for Assange to fear extradition to Sweden is that apparently it would be much easier to extradite him from from Sweden to the United States. In other words, it's not Sweden that he's afraid of, but that the Swedes will hand him over to the Americans with a wink and a nod.

He's not been CHARGED with anything - the cops just want to question him.

Ooops, but then Sweden, out of nowhere, gets a extradition order from the US. Not being charged in Sweden means local charges don't prevent him from leaving, so what do you know, Jules, welcome to GITMO.

He is truly this paranoid? Can someone get this man to a psychiatrist? He is only wanted for questioning. Sweden wont extradite him to USA. If you believe that you have been sucked in to the conspiracy nuts world.

This is so far from reality

No doubt about that. He has been ranting for months that the USA will secretly extradite him from Sweden (as if Sweden has already okayed this -- yeah right), ship him off to Guantanamo Bay (like Harold & Kumar, no doubt), and execute him shortly thereafter. Does that actually sound realistic to anybody with at least half a brain living in this USA? Hell, Obama would probably have a reception for him at the White House instead.